I

written against her. Charles II., a prince who is severely judged by, English historians, shewed more tolerance than the daughter of the Tudors for offences of the press. Seeing a poor author, who was being conducted to the pillory, the king enquired what he had been guilty of, and was informed that he had been writing a pamphlet against the ministers. "What a fool!" replied the monarch; "why did he not write against me, and they would have let him alone!" I relate this well-known anecdote merely to shew the various ideas which have prevailed in England respecting the legislation of the press.

Shortly after the affair of Peltier, Sir James Mackintosh was appointed to an important judicial post in India; and there his eloquence was applied to another system of legislation. On his return to England, however, he did not again appear at the bar. He was elected a member of the house of commons, where he became distinguished for moderate opposition to the encroachments of power, and for vigorous logical elocution, which, though not brilliant, is always strictly conformable to par liamentary rules, He may be called the RoyerCollard of the English elective chamber. other day I heard him support a motion for printing the old chronicles of Great Britain at the expence of government. Sir James is himself the author of a history, which is likely to form an era in the national literature of England. He is also a contributor to the Edinburgh Review; and his articles are distinguished for erudition and purity of style,

The

In the course of his travels, Sir James has acquired a vast store of varied information; and his brilliant conversation affords an admirable specimen of that universality of knowledge which, perhaps, an Englishman may attain more easily than the inhabitant of any other nation.

LETTER LIII.

TO M. AYLIES, ADVOCATE.

SINCE the death of Sir Samuel Romilly, Messrs. Brougham and Scarlett are the two most distinguished men at the English bar.

Sir Samuel Romilly, to whose memory the handsomest tribute of praise has been paid by one of the most eloquent members of our opposition, has left behind him no published speeches, except those which are to be found in the frequently incorrect reports of trials. Sir Samuel Romilly was descended from one of those French families, who emigrated to England at the time of the revocation of the edict of Nantes. France may justly regret the loss of so distinguished a man; and while we render homage to his talents and virtues, it is gratifying to reflect that some drops of French blood flowed in his veins. He entered upon his profession with no fortune; but with the laudable determination of acquiring one.

His efforts were

soon crowned with success; and he had the satisfaction of seeing his family raised to independence. He was still young in years, and in talent, when he was introduced to the lady who afterwards became his wife; and with the noble confidence of a generous mind, he proposed that their union should be deferred until he could present to her the fruits which a few years of his professional exertions might produce. He soon after obtained wealth, fame, and happiness, three things which are so rarely united together. He lived in the enjoyment of his well deserved prosperity until the year 1820, when grief for the loss of his wife, to whom he was devotedly attached, produced aberration of mind, and he put an end to his existence.

Sir Samuel Romilly soon became a member of the house of commons, where he was one of the most distinguished ornaments of the opposition. He particularly directed his attention to the penal code, in which he succeeded in making several useful amendments. In 1789 he visited France, and was introduced to Mirabeau, who requested him to draw up an abstract of the English parliamentary regulations.

In 1806, when Fox succeeded to the ministry, Sir Samuel Romilly was appointed attorney-general; but he resigned his functions when his party were superseded in the favour of the monarch by Lord Castlereagh.

No Englishman has greater claims on the gratitude of foreigners than Romilly. He was the constant opposer of the alien bill; and if he did

not succeed in getting it abolished, his powerful arguments at least forced the government to modify it in practice. It was natural that the descendant of a French refugee should-solicit the intercession of the British parliament in favour of the protestants of the south of France in 1815; but however laudable might be the commisseration expressed by the English government for our unfortunate dissenters, it is impossible to avoid susspecting its sincerity, when one looks to the conduct of that same government with respect to Ireland.

I cannot always recognise the spirit of genuine philanthropy in the churlish liberalism which characterizes the political speeches of Mr. Brougham. This ungraceful orator possesses as much, or perhaps more, knowledge than Sir Samuel Romilly or Sir James Mackintosh, but he wants their taste and purity of style. His manner sometimes smacks of the tavern, even on the most solemn occasions. He is vehement and energetic; his irony is bitter, and his invective severe, even to excess. When he defends a bad cause, (and it would appear that he has a peculiar predilection for such,) the boldness of his manner before the judges borders on menace. This, it is true, may be merely the confidence of superiority, but in the sanctuary of the laws it has an air of insolence. When he interrogates a witness whose evidence embarrasses him, he often disdains the artful precautions of his profession. He fixes his eye on him with an appalling look of contempt;

there is gall in the very tone of his voice; and when he succeeds in confounding the object of his attack, his malignant smile injures the effect of his triumph. His speeches in the house of commons produce similar impressions. The effect of his most eloquent addresses is marred by bad taste and coarseness.

In conducting the defence of the Queen of England, Mr. Brougham had sufficient tact to modify his usual manner, and many passages of his speeches on that occasion are remarkable for dignity. The world is, unfortunately, but too familiar with the details of that trial, so disgraceful to Great Britain. The affair of the necklace was one of the thousand causes which helped to bring about the French revolution, by the suspicions to which it instantly subjected the most august persons in the state; and in the same way the opprobrium which the contents of the green bag reflected on majesty itself, might have directly compromised all the house of Hanover. A constitutional throne is, perhaps, established on basis more firm than any other; but the interest of sovereign authority, which always requires the aid of illusion and prejudice, imperatively demands that a Queen, like Cæsar's wife, should not be even suspected; or if she be, silence is the only resource. What a spectacle was that trial for the moral and religious people of three kingdoms !*

* There were certain inconsistencies in the conduct of the people of England with respect to Queen Caroline, which it is curious to remark,